Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Studying Kangaroo Farts and Teflon-Coated Frogs: Weird Science That Could Save Our Lives

Independent UK. Posted January 3, 2008.


Did you know kangaroo farts are environmentally friendly? Scientists are studying the bacteria that prevents them from releasing methane.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Why study kangaroo farts?

Until recently, we may have thought that the most interesting things about kangaroos were their mean left hooks and, in the case of Skippy the Bush Kangaroo, their ability to rescue lost children from the wilds of Australia.

But, thanks to research carried out in Queensland for the past four years, and released last month, the marsupial's cleverest trick is its ability to produce environmentally friendly farts. Researchers have isolated the bacteria in the stomach lining of kangaroos that means their farts contain no methane, a greenhouse gas far more damaging than carbon dioxide.

The team, led by Dr. Athol Klieve, believes that unlocking this secret could lead to the creation of more climate-friendly cattle. Between them, the flatulent farm animals produce so much methane that they account for 14 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia, second only to power stations. But if the kangaroo bacteria were added to cattle feed, the researchers hope they could create herds with much lower carbon footprints.

Scientists already know that kangaroo stomachs are more than just green. Instead of methane, they produce acetate, a chemical that improves digestion. Feed laced with kangaroo bacteria could give rise to livestock that is not only greener, but also faster-growing and more fertile.

Methane-busting feed supplements could be available commercially in as little as three years, but some scientists point to a more direct solution – instead of slapping a hunk of beef or lamb on the barbie, why not kangaroo meat? This would help cap the marsupial population, which has reached plague proportions in parts of Australia, and connoisseurs say the meat is good. " It is also low in fat, high in protein and kangaroos are the ultimate free-range animal," says Peter Ampt of the University of New South Wales.

Why give frogs a Teflon coating?

You might expect frogs and Teflon to meet only in a French chef's frying pan. But in August, scientists at the University of Michigan revealed details of an experiment in which they created non-stick frog cells. Which, of course, raises the question: why?

Since the 1980s, scientists have been especially interested in frogs, among other animals, because their skin produces antimicrobial peptides (AMPs). These proteins are an incredibly useful way for the animals to fight infection -- AMPs are potent, broad-spectrum antibiotics. They are the immune system's first line of defense, combating microbes and viruses as they try to enter the body.

Scientists have tried to exploit these disease-fighting characteristics by putting AMPs in creams and other treatments used to fight infection in humans. But enzymes in the human skin stick to the AMPs, often rendering them useless, and increasing the concentration of AMPs often causes toxic side effects, such as killing red blood cells.

It was in an effort to combat this destructive stickiness that the scientists started to think about Teflon. Led by biological chemist Neil Marsh, the team considered what makes Teflon -- the plastic coating that stops your omelette sticking to the frying pan -- work so well.

"Teflon relies on a non-reactive fluorine coating to work," explains Marsh's colleague, Lindsey Gottler. "When we introduced fluorine to AMPs, we increased its stability, stopping them reacting with other proteins in the body."

Fortunately for frogs, none were required to create these non-stick AMPs. Marsh and his team used pexiganan, a synthetic copy of an AMP found in the Xenopus laevis frog. They then replaced certain amino acids in pexiganan with fluorinated alternatives, and called the new, non-stick peptide fluorogainin-1.

Marsh and his team hope the Teflon-tipped AMPs will help doctors to fight bacteria that are becoming increasingly resistant to conventional treatments. They could appear in improved creams designed to combat skin ulcers in diabetes patients, eye infections, or even the hospital bug MRSA.

What's the point of a glow-in-the-dark cat?

In 2006 in Taipei, scientists injected a protein taken from jellyfish into a pig embryo to create an eerie-looking luminous-green pig. This year, scientists in South Korea cloned a cat that glows red when exposed to ultraviolet light. Why this apparent obsession among the world's great scientists with phosphorescing animals?

In the case of the scientists who cloned three felines (white Turkish angoras, to be precise) in January and February last year, the aim was not to reduce night-time road accidents, but to develop treatments for genetic diseases in humans.

A team led by Kong Il-keun at Gyeongsang National University used a virus to modify the genes of a mother cat's skin cells, making them fluorescent. Kong then transplanted these cells into the cat's ova, which were in turn implanted into the womb of a donor cat.

But the glowing offspring of this test-tube tabby are no more useful to mankind than your auntie's moggy; the red glow is merely a marketing exercise designed to draw attention to the team's work.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: science, kangaroo farts, methane, global warming, teflon, frogs

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
go
Posted by: walldodger1969 on Jan 3, 2008 4:17 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Go Science Go!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Science research
Posted by: kiel on Jan 3, 2008 4:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes--go science. Too bad the 2008 US Budget shows a 0% increase in NIH funding, and just 1.1% increase at NSF, after years of being gutted by politicians who claim that we need to foster science innovation. We scientists are being choked off faster than al Quaida by these fools.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Science research Posted by: katz22br
» RE: Science research Posted by: AlterEg0
Which is it?
Posted by: SavageDissension on Jan 3, 2008 7:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On this very day, we have an article on the front page bemoaning the woes of Big Pharma sitting right next to an article touting the wonders of playing with genes in cats, drugs in worms, engineered feed and Reaganized antibacterial creams. I left seriously confused.

Is our obsession with quick techie fixes a good or a bad thing? I seem to recall reading somewhere that a study was done on Teflon that linked it to cancer (Take that with a grain of salt, as I can't remember other details, it just struck me as shocking) and now we want to put the stuff into a cream that will be applied directly to the forehead?

That's just the beginning of my confusion, but seriously, ten years down the road, are we going to be bemoaning Big Kanga for the ills it has wrought on society? There seems such a fanboyish love of technology out there that we latch onto the novel and disregard serious inquiry into the possible pitfalls such advances may hold. I'm just looking for a little clarification as to whether we're the stodgy "Told ya' so" crowd or the zealous "Go Science Go" crowd. The dissonance is killing me.

I wonder if there's a pill for that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Which is it? Well... Posted by: MatthewSavage
Which is it?
Posted by: SavageDissension on Jan 3, 2008 7:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On this very day, we have an article on the front page bemoaning the woes of Big Pharma sitting right next to an article touting the wonders of playing with genes in cats, drugs in worms, engineered feed and Reaganized antibacterial creams. I left seriously confused.

Is our obsession with quick techie fixes a good or a bad thing? I seem to recall reading somewhere that a study was done on Teflon that linked it to cancer (Take that with a grain of salt, as I can't remember other details, it just struck me as shocking) and now we want to put the stuff into a cream that will be applied directly to the forehead?

That's just the beginning of my confusion, but seriously, ten years down the road, are we going to be bemoaning Big Kanga for the ills it has wrought on society? There seems such a fanboyish love of technology out there that we latch onto the novel and disregard serious inquiry into the possible pitfalls such advances may hold. I'm just looking for a little clarification as to whether we're the stodgy "Told ya' so" crowd or the zealous "Go Science Go" crowd. The dissonance is killing me.

I wonder if there's a pill for that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Which is it? Posted by: katz22br
Paul Cardwell
Posted by: Paul Cardwell on Jan 3, 2008 8:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is this sponsored by the natural gas lobby? Capturing and anaerobically treating bovine effluent can both create high quality fertilizer and hydroponic solution, but also produce enough methane to cut dependence on natural gas (fossil methane) to the point that the highly dangerous LPG tankers would not be needed at all.

Also the writer seems to confuse roundworms (phylum nemahelmenthes) with earthworms (phylum anealida), which is in the same category as confusing a chimp with a starfish.

A little knowledge, etc.

It is a lot funnier when the rammifications are
ignored.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Paul Cardwell Posted by: fg
Scientists with time to kill
Posted by: audiodef on Jan 3, 2008 9:08 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Um... animal testing and animal cruelty? Hello? Jesus H.!

This is just blinkin' bizarre. It's like these scientists have nothing better to do so they're just scientifically jacking off. The only real science here was the last segment. That could honestly be useful. The rest is horse hockey.

Screwing with nature leads to unforeseen consequences. The stupid species we belong to will not learn. Mad cow disease? Remember that? Bird flu? Yello?

It's disappointing to see this type of article in a progressive publication that isn't pointing out what's wrong with this picture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Scientists with time to kill Posted by: radagast_23
» Yeah... Posted by: Habaro
Gut response (bacterially speaking)
Posted by: permaculturist on Jan 3, 2008 12:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While transplanting gut organisms may seem like a good idea, it's actually a bass-ackward approach to solving the problem. Grass fed cattle, and this may come as a surprise to many, do not produce methane in anything near the volumes as their CAFO (contained animal feed operations) cousins. GRAIN-fed (and antibiotic over-medicated, GMO-mal-nourished) cattle, on the other hand produce not only mega-methane but resistant strains of bacteria, like e-coli and many others, which can be passed on to consumers.

Then there's MRSA, the very scary antibiotic-resistant strain of Staphylococcus bacteria that is now killing more Americans each year than AIDS - 100,000 infections leading to 19,000 deaths in 2005. MRSA was found on 45 percent of the 20 CAFO pig farms sampled in Ontario, and in 20 percent of the pig farmers.

"The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that at least 70 percent of the antibiotics used in America are fed to animals living on factory farms. Raising vast numbers of pigs or chickens or cattle in close and filthy confinement simply would not be possible without the routine feeding of antibiotics to keep the animals from dying of infectious diseases." (Grass feed cattle do not require antibiotics...however, you might. Eat enough of the meat from these systems and antibiotics will, likely (and just when you need them the most), stop working for you).

Even their manure is toxic as it kills soil organisms. Then there's the stench, spills, and plummeting property values near CAFOs.

We could feed cows (and other critters) in the manner to which they've adapted over centuries of success or we can continue to imprison them in plague-breeding concentration camps. Your choice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bingo! Posted by: Habaro
» Sadly, not likely to happen. But... Posted by: MatthewSavage
They never learn do they...
Posted by: Pirate1 on Jan 3, 2008 5:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Messing with nature that way always has a shadow as big or bigger than the hoped for benefit. All I can say is eventually all this greed driven "prison" farming that requires antibiotic cocktails just to survive because it is so contrary to how the animals evolved will come back to bite us all on our well fed asses in the form of some plague that is 80% fatal and there are no effective antibiotics around to combat it. The only good I see in that is it'll knock our numbers back to medieval levels... maybe we'll have learned something this time and live more like the people we eradicated as savages not so long ago...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

old news
Posted by: arlsutroa on Jan 7, 2008 8:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this "news" story is over a year old...kudos to the ignorance and lack of research by the author

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Geneticly modified Apple is the Forbidden Fruit!
Posted by: williameon on Jan 8, 2008 3:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mother nature is perfect!
Time tested and true.
It takes generations for change to become a reality.
These Evil Scientists want to do it in a second.
The repercussions are many while the potential benefits few!
The consequences of genetic engineering far out weight their supposed benefit.
The consequences are dangerous and catastrophic.
Franken Food is a perfect example.
The side effects are enormous.
Who benefits?
MONTSANTO!
They are messing around with the building blocks of life!
For what?
Corporate GREED, evil and corrupt.
They place their bottom line ahead of your health.
When did Man become The Creator anyway?
Look at the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden.
The Spirit said, “leave the Apple alone”,
To a primitive people.
The snake in the Garden is genetic engineering.
The Geneticly modified Apple is the
Forbidden Fruit.
It is Pandora’s Box!
Close it before any more Monsters escape!
We have plenty of problems already without
Cor‘pirate’ GREED creating anymore.
It’s a black technology.
Much worse than The Nuclear Bomb.
It’s evil.
Mother Nature does just fine without man’s interference.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]